Le 29/02/12 17:46, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Daniel Glazman
> <daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote:
>> Le 28/02/12 22:49, Tab Atkins Jr. a écrit :
>>> If we do, we should broaden it to all non-W3C references, like RFCs,
>>> which we definitely refer to in some places.
>>
>> FIWI, RFCs are a bit different here: W3C does not have working groups
>> on same topics and specs of same names...
>
> Irrelevant; the concern is with patents, not politics.
Don't tell _me_ that. The CSS WG is still a W3C WG, and W3C does
have some rules.
</Daniel>